No, I think you've misunderstood me. I mean, it is quite possible to prove something that does exist does not have this or that attribute, if it doesn't. I also pointed out I do not agree with the generally assumed statement that it is impossible to prove something does not exist. This is what it means to say it is impossible to prove a negative. Again, I do not agree it is universally true, for reasons already explained.
I am not sure what you thought I meant by your expression, "you're claiming that proofs of negative statements do not exist." As stated, I would certainly never claim that. If someone says, "the cat is not in the closet," that statement would be pretty easy to prove simply by looking in the closet.
But at a deeper level, please note that you've completely excluded the use of attributes in the realm of negative proofs -- which is both artificial, and absurd. It's difficult to see how one can prove that "something" doesn't exist without having access to the attributes that make it "something."
Well that is exactly right, and that is exactly my point. My argument is, as soon as you assign attributes to something, it very well may be disproved, and most of the things that people say cannot be disproved depend on the keeping them intentionally vague.
However, Occam's razor is nothing but an assumption that the simplest explanation is the correct explanation
If there is an explanation for something, how could a more complex one be more correct, or, if it contradicts the simple explanation, how could they both be true. I do not understand how there can be an objection to Occam's razor. It does not assume the explanation is correct because it is simple, but that the simplest explanation that is correct is the best one, because the addition of complexity does not add any information.
I think all of us have seen cases where the "simplest" explanation is incorrect, for any number of reasons...
If it is incorrect it isn't the explanation. Occam's razor only applies when the explanation is correct, and known to be.
Hank
They must prove mindlessness subsumes consciousness.
Unfortunately, IMHO, this truth would invalidate truth.